SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M/S DRUSHTI ENGINEERS AND DEVELOPERS MUMBAI THR AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS – Respondent
WP 8879/2012



Advocates:
['DESHMUKH SACHIN S', 'COPY SERVED ON STANDING COUNSEL', '', 'NAVANDAR MANISH N', 'FOR', 'ALOK SHARMA', 'PATIL RUTURAJ C', 'FOR R']

8879.12wp

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.8879 OF 2012

M/s Drushti Engineers & Developers

A Partnership Firm,

Registered under Indian Partnership Act

Having its Office at Terminal 9, Besides Vile Parle

East Police Station, Nehru Road, Vile

Parle (East), Mumbai,

Through its Authorized Signatory

Mr Narendra Sakharam Sawant,

Manager

Liasioning of the Petitioner

..PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

Union of India,

Through its Secretary,

Ministry of Textiles,

New Delhi

2.

Aurangabad Textile Mills,

A Unit of National Textile Corporation,

(South Maharashtra) Ltd., Subsidiary of

National Textile Corporation, A Government

of India Undertaking, Kotwalpura,

Station road, Aurangabad-431001

3.

National Textile Corporation Limited

(Western Region) NTC House,

15, N. M. Marg, Ballard Estate,

Mumbai-400001.

..RESPONDENTS

Mr Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner;

Mr A. B. Dhongade, Standing Counsel for respondent No.1;

Mr M. N. Navandar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3

CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ

AND

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Reserved on : 21st January, 2021

Pronounced on : 25th January, 2021

8879.12wp

(2)

JUDGMENT (Per : Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) :-

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

2.

By this petition, the petitioner has putforth prayer clauses A, B

and C as under :

(A)

That this Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue a

writ of certiorary and/or a writ in nature of certiorary

and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction

under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,

thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned

communication dated 29.5.2012 issued by the

Respondent no.3.

(B)

That this Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue a

writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order

or direction to the Respondents thereby directing to

conclude the sale proceedings in respect of free hold

land – Taxi stand, bearing City Survey No.20666 of

Aurangabad Textile Mills, Aurangabad, which were

initiated pursuant to the E-tender dtd. 24.2.2011 and for

that purpose issue necessary directions.

(C)

Pending the hearing and final disposal of the

present Writ Petition, respondents be restrained by an

order of injunction from creating any third party

interest in respect of free hold land – Taxi stand bearing

City Survey No.20666 of Aurangabad Textile Mills,

Aurangabad, which were initiated pursuant to the

E-tender dtd. 24.2.2011 and for that purpose issue

necessary directions.

8879.12wp

(3)

3.

The impugned communication dated 29/05/2012, issued by

respondent No.3 informs the petitioner as under :

“Dear Sir,

Please refer to the letters cited above and earlier

correspondence exchanged between us regarding sale of

the subject property. As informed you earlier we had

referred the matter to the Asset Sale Committee (ASC).

The ASC after due deliberations and considering all the

relevant facts have come to the conclusion that though

there was no stay / legal impediment for executing the

sale deed and that despite number of opportunities given

to you by NTC to comply with the terms & conditions of

tender, you failed to avail the same. In view of this the

ASC has decided to forfeit the EMD paid by you.

In view of the decision taken by the ADC, we inform you

that your EMD amount of Rs.19,55,000/- (Rupees

Nineteen Lacs Fifty Five Thousand Only) stands

forfeited.

This is for your information.

Thanking you,

Yours faithfully,

For National Textile Corporation Ltd. (WR),

Sd/

(P.M. Bidri)

Chief General Manager – Region Head.”

4.

The contention of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 had

floated an E-tender in 2011, for inviting offers to sell the freehold land

- taxi stand

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top